Italian scientist reproduces Shroud of Turin

[RedImperator]

Mostly because crucifing was not used during the middle ages - it being used on jesus and all that.
They used other methods instead.

Yeah, many of them terribly bloody. That's all you really need to fake a shroud, especially if you're a town executioner and can do whatever with the body once it's been properly abused in public.

The primary methods of execution in the middle ages were hanging, burning, beheading, and drawing/quartering. None of those would produce wounds that look remotely like crucification. The closest I can see is taking a body that had been hanged, driving nails through the wrists and feet (along with other wounds to correspond with Christ's), and wrapping that in cloth.

[Frank Hipper]

You're forgetting being broken and braided on the wheel, Red; that's crucifixion with different carpentry.

[Darth Holbytlan]

It seems like every few years a new article comes out about someone finally explaining how the Shroud of Turin was reproduced. It inevitably claims that scientists haven't been able to explain it, ignoring the fact that it has been explained for over a quarter century now. (Basically, a pressing of a pigmented bas-relief model of Jesus with "blood" done in egg tempra.)

The technique described in the article has the same failings as any method based on a real human body. The shroud image has odd proportions that don't match a real human being, but doesn't show the expected distortions from flattening a cloth laid over a three-dimensional object. This also knocks out the executed prisoner hypothesis.

Mostly from memory, here is a quick run down of the problems with the shroud:

1. Shroud carbon dates to the mid-14th century.
2. Tests indicate presence of artist pigments.
3. The "blood" doesn't test or act like real blood. e.g. It didn't turn black like real blood as it ages.
4. The anatomy of the image is suspect.
5. The image is inconsistent with an impression from a real 3D object.
6. The shroud does not correctly represent 1st century Jewish burial practices. e.g. Jesus should have all his hair shaved off.
7. The textile uses a herringbone weave unknown in the 1st century, but popular in the 14th.
8. The shroud's provenance stops at the mid-14th century.
9. A church investigator from the 14th century reports finding the original artist, who confessed to him.

See also The Skeptic's Dictionary for a quick overview, or Joe Nickell's Inquest on the Shroud of Turin for more detailed coverage. The latter is a bit old, so it won't cover the more recent bullshitcounterarguments from the faithful.

[Vendetta]

[*]A church investigator from the 14th century reports finding the original artist, who confessed to him.[/list]

Additionally the Pope at the time, Pope Clement, denounced it as a forgery.

[Spoonist]

And what if the forger is Muslim?

Then it obviously doesn't apply.

Again showing your modern cultural bias. Muslims would also have considered that a blasphemy, JC being a prophet in their religion as well. That concept was very strong in this time period.
This is especially so since muslims did not have the same affinity for forging relics as the christian monestaries. Maybe because lots of relics where "rescued" from the heathen muslims during the crusades.

[PeZook]

Again showing your modern cultural bias. Muslims would also have considered that a blasphemy, JC being a prophet in their religion as well. That concept was very strong in this time period.

D'oh!

Yeah, I really should've remembered that little bit. Heh.